argument67 [spring] 第五次作业

cinda2020UID: 2371432

In a letter to the editor of a newspaper serving the villages of Castorville and Polluxton said that both the villages of Castorville(C) and Polluxton (P) have experienced sharp declines in the numbers of residents who pay property taxes. To save money and improve service, the two villages want to closing the library in P, as it merged their garbage collection departments located in C. to support this recommendation the committee points out that the new department of garbage collection has reported few complains about its service. This argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands. I find the letter writer’s argument unconvincing in several important respects.

First of all, the writer cites that the new department of garbage collection has reported few complaints about its service to indicate its impossibility. There is the question that is the library has the same condition to the garbage collection? Common senses tell us that there are special cars to collect the garbage form where people live. So it will not bring obvious unconvinced to merged two garbage collection during a period of time. But, library is different, people should go to the library themselves, both lend and return. So it will bring troubles to many residents. And has reported few complains could indicate that there are not question to merge garbage collection? Perhaps lots of people have complaints but it didn’t mention to the reporter.

Secondly, even if the library has the comparable to the garbage collection, according to the letter writer last year the library in P had 20 percent fewer users than during the previous year, then how many residents will be last? 100 people or 10000 people? And how many residents there are in the C? if there are only 100 people in the C while there are still 10000 people live in the P, it is obvious not proper to close the library in P and use the library in C. only judge by the status of 20% to decide weather a library should be closed is arbitrary. More evidence should be given.

Thirdly, assumptive that it will not bring much problems to the residents in P to use the library in C, will it really bring further economize and improve service to both the villages? On the one hand, if all the residents should go to the library by themselves, how much will it increase the traffic fee? And will the more traffic bring correlate air pollution? On the other hand, I am sure many people will lost their interesting to go to the library due to the increase of distance and the difference between the two library, perhaps just the difference of the circumstance or the service. Is those cost we can’t count worthy? I believe we should do our best to courage our residents to go to the library instead of discourage them by any probability.

In summary, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author must provide better evidence that the closing is necessary and it could further economize and improve service to both the two villages. Without such further evidence, we can not accept the author’s conclusion.